AdMech Development Goals

In an attempt to make the development process more transparent, I'm creating this thread to explain a bit about the direction I'd like to see the AdMech lists move and what our development goal is.

Primary Goal:

Balanced, fun, and playable lists focused on and representative of three core aspects of the AdMech military. These aspects are Titans, Skitarii, and Cataphractii. They represent Titan focused, Infantry focused, and Armor focused. These three lists form the "core" AdMech lists. Although the AdMech is the maker of all weapons and vehicles in the Imperium and therefore would have access to any unit or weapon it chooses, the units in these lists should be iconic of or specific to the AdMech and provide a foundation for alternative lists such as Ordo Reductor and Legio Cybernetica to pull units from.

The Adeptus Mechanicus is effectively a race of elite units because of their unprecedented access to the best technologies the Imperium has to offer from Archaeotech hidden in nearly forgotten vaults to experimental weapons not yet ready for use on a wider scale. As such, individual AdMech units can be far more devastating than size alone would suggest. Therefore, most AdMech lists have one of two deliberate weaknesses:

A thought is that the Cataphractii would be the more offensive list with tank schock tactics and the Skittarii list would be more defensive with palisade walls and defense lasers supporting masses of dug in skittarii infantery...

For me it would be great to have different playstyles with the different lists and not just 2 of the same with the only difference of 1 being AV heavy and the other being INF heavy.

What do you other actice AdMech players think?

_________________https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

My issue with a fixed defensive and fixed offensive list is that it takes the decision of how to play a list away from the player. In a very rough comparison, it would be like saying everyone who has a guard army has to play them like siegemasters. The core lists should be more generic and leave how they are played up to the player with variant lists focusing more on specific aspects.

Case in point, Epic:A Marines are very open ended. They can ostensibly represent any marine chapter you wish and can be played in several different ways successfully. It's all up to the player to decide what to do. We could have just as easily had a specific chapter represented but instead the choice is up to the player. Since then more specific lists have been put together.

My issue with a fixed defensive and fixed offensive list is that it takes the decision of how to play a list away from the player.

The approved Death Korps of Krieg list is a counter example to that. The list includes both offensive/mobile options (Gorgon, Centaurs, Trojans) and defensive options (trenches, bunkers and gun emplacements) and the army can and often is run way or the other (or a mix).

If you include both defensive options and mechanised options in the one Skitiarii list, appropriately costed and balanced, then players truly have a choice as how to play the list. Currently players wanting a defensive/fortified AM army are just out of luck.

If you include both defensive options and mechanised options in the one Skitiarii list, appropriately costed and balanced, then players truly have a choice as how to play the list. Currently players wanting a defensive/fortified AM army are just out of luck.

If you take the current state of the AdMech, yes you are correct. The point being that what we've got now isn't the end goal. We want to give players flexibility but it takes time to make sure that there is a framework in place that we can extend as necessary to accommodate specific play styles without needing to send the entire Skitarii or Cataphractii list back through approval. When it comes down to it, what's the first thing you think of when you hear Skitarii? I'd wager it's not trenches, walls, gun emplacements, and bunkers!

To reiterate the AdMech goals in the first post of the thread, the first step is getting the framework in place. Then we can create modules that extend the framework.

But why not just broaden the basic framework and include defensive options from the start? If they are optional it wouldn't force players to use them. But it could attract thoose who wanted them, i.e more players would play the list and it could lead to more battle reports being done.

I can't see how it would make the list less interesting or move back develoepment too far. It's not like anyone is throwing battle reports at you. I did a few but then got told by you that they couldn't be used to count for the mandatory 6 because i was using the avengers and they weren't 100% set to be in the list. Now that they are i rind that descisions a quite strange...

_________________https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

But why not just broaden the basic framework and include defensive options from the start? If they are optional it wouldn't force players to use them. But it could attract thoose who wanted them, i.e more players would play the list and it could lead to more battle reports being done.

First off, so we are clear, I'm not arguing against adding defense at all. This is a discussion about list structure. The end result either way is that players will have optional rules to add defenses to AdMech lists.

A couple of reasons actually. First is fluff. Every army fights defensive operations at some point, but are walls, bunkers, or emplacements really the defining characteristic of all skitarii forces like you could argue they are for DKOK? Fluff wise, I think you would have to say that the emphasis is on exotic or arcane technologies and biological augmentations not common in other Imperial forces rather than defensive structures. Shouldn't we focus on what defines skitarii and the admech first?

The second is that rules for defenses would be optional, as you say. A framework should consist of items that define an Amy as uniquely adMech regardless of how the army is played; it should not include optional rules. The goal of development is to create the framework first and then extend that framework with optional modules. Adding defenses fits very well with the definition of optional module or addon.

Does this mean you might not see something you want for a bit longer? Yes, it does, but the end result will make future development much more efficient.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum